To secure a ceasefire with Iran, the US must abandon ideological war

Yet even more dangerous is a war devoid of strategic rationality. Today, both the American public and much of the world are asking a simple question: by what logic did US President Donald Trump follow Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into a war with unclear objectives and potentially catastrophic consequences? No convincing answer has emerged, as this war is not grounded in geopolitical rationality but in a form of theopolitical irrationality. Traditional concepts of rational statecraft, such as geopolitical balance, geoeconomic interdependence, crisis management and regional stability, have been replaced by a different vocabulary: Armageddon, divine missions, chosen people, and the notion of fulfilling sacred destinies through force. While such ideas might once have been dismissed as fringe rhetoric, their adoption by state leadership signals a far deeper crisis. When religious symbolism and apocalyptic narratives influence decision making at the highest levels of power, the result is policy distortion of the most dangerous kind – a potential existential threat to global order. Following World War Two, the Gulf region was governed by a relatively stable strategic framework based on three pillars: the geoeconomics of global energy flows, the geopolitical stability necessary to sustain them, and a geomilitary balance designed to protect that equilibrium. This structure created an implicit consensus that conflicts should not spill over into the Gulf. Even rival powers recognised the region's stability as a shared interest. This framework proved resilient. The eight-year Iran-Iraq War did not draw in the Gulf monarchies. The international response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait restored sovereignty while preserving the broader regional order. Even after the 9/11 attacks and the US invasion of Iraq, Gulf states managed to remain outside the direct epicentre of conflict. The Netanyahu-Trump alignment, supported by Zionist and Christian-Zionist ideological networks, has replaced geopolitical rationality with a theopolitical war logic Today, however, this balance has been shattered. The Netanyahu-Trump alignment, supported by Zionist and Christian-Zionist ideological networks, has replaced geopolitical rationality with a theopolitical war logic. The consequences are profound: threats to the Strait of Hormuz endanger the global economy; the Gulf's image as a safe financial hub is undermined; and the presence of American bases no longer guarantees security. The region, once a cornerstone of global stability, has become the epicentre of a systemic crisis. The central question is whether a ceasefire can restore geopolitical rationality. Experience from past crises suggests that ceasefires become possible when all sides simultaneously feel that they are weakening and are unable to achieve decisive victory. After weeks of destruction, such a moment may be approaching. But for a ceasefire to materialise, the United States in particular must conduct a strategic reassessment. This means disentangling US foreign policy from Israeli ambitions and the ideological forces behind it. The merging of religious dogma with state policy, portraying history as a sacred battle and legitimising territorial expansion and annihilation of perceived enemies, echoes dangerous ideological patterns of the past. At the same time, rational Israeli politicians and Jewish intellectuals must take a clear stand against the current trajectory. Israel is not synonymous with its present leadership, just as Judaism cannot be reduced to the policies of any government. Voices grounded in ethical responsibility and strategic reason are urgently needed. Path to peace A return to geopolitical rationality is indispensable for ending the war. The assumption that escalating destruction will produce quick victory, especially in light of electoral calculations, is deeply flawed. Without a ground war, regime change in Iran is unrealistic; yet a ground war would likely produce consequences far more severe than those experienced in Iraq, potentially triggering prolonged regional instability. This reality places responsibility on rational actors within the US. Bipartisan leaders, particularly within the Republican Party, must recognise the declining public support for the war and challenge the assumption that military escalation yields political advantage. The widespread No Kings demonstrations across major American cities reflect a growing public demand for restraint and accountability. Iran must also reassess its regional strategy. The reliance on proxy networks to project influence across multiple Arab capitals, like Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa, has proven counterproductive, creating vulnerabilities rather than strength. A shift towards constructive regional engagement, particularly by halting attacks on neighbouring Gulf countries and pursuing mutual respect, is essential. Trump has called Middle East wars 'crazy', but the US-Israel war on Iran may be the craziest yet Read More » Moreover, true national resilience does not derive from nuclear capabilities but from internal legitimacy, economic wellbeing, security, and dignity for citizens. The losses and weaknesses exposed during the war should prompt meaningful reforms within Iran's political system. For Gulf countries, the implications are equally profound. The longstanding reliance on external security guarantees has proven insufficient. Neither American military presence nor increased defence spending has prevented instability. Similarly, normalisation initiatives under the Abraham Accords that bypass the Palestinian issue have failed to produce sustainable peace and instead generated legitimacy challenges. As a result, Gulf leaders face the urgent need for a comprehensive strategic transformation based on four pillars: revitalising regional cooperation mechanisms such as the Gulf Cooperation Council; constructing an inclusive regional order involving key actors, including Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Iran; maintaining balanced relations among global powers; and recognising that no durable peace can be achieved without addressing Palestinian rights. A ceasefire becomes viable when all parties acknowledge the limits of their power and recognise that continued conflict brings diminishing returns. The current moment may represent such a window. What is needed is a framework that allows each side to present the outcome domestically as acceptable, even without total victory, supported by credible mediators capable of bridging divides. Failure to seize this opportunity risks far greater consequences. World War Two was driven by ideological doctrines centred on race and destiny. A future global conflict, shaped by theopolitical narratives, may not emerge as a single war but as interconnected regional conflicts that collectively produce unprecedented devastation. The choice, therefore, is stark: a return to rational geopolitics grounded in law, balance and mutual interest, or a descent into a fragmented and ideologically driven global order with potentially catastrophic outcomes. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. War on Iran Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0